Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maurice Williams v. New York State Div. of Parole

July 12, 2012

MAURICE WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DIV. OF PAROLE, RESPONDENT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

Maurice Williams ("Petitioner") filed a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 20, 2010. (Dkt. No. 1.) By Report-Recommendation dated December 21, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and that a certificate of appealability not issue. (Dkt. No. 13.) Petitioner filed objections to the Report-Recommendation on January 27, 2012, and February 17, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 18.) For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, and the Petition is denied and dismissed in its entirety.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

For the sake of brevity, the Court will not repeat the factual background of Petitioner's September 2006 conviction for weapons possession in the third degree but will simply refer the parties to the relevant portion of Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation, which accurately recites that factual background. (Dkt. No. 8 at Part I.)

A. Petitioner's Claims

Petition filed his Petition on December 20, 2010. (Dkt. No. 1.) Generally, in his Petition, Petitioner asserts the following three claims: (1) a claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner because the charging instrument did not allege all of the elements to support the conviction (specifically, the "intent to use" element for weapons possession); (2) a claim that Petitioner's conviction was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation by the court and its personnel, attorneys of record, and law enforcement officials, because the charging instrument was "facially insufficient"; and (3) a claim that, by unlawfully and maliciously arresting, prosecuting and convicting Petitioner, Respondent has violated Petitioner's rights to due process, equal protection, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. (Id.)

B. Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation

On November 29, 2011, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued his Report-Recommendation in this action. (Dkt. No. 13.) In his Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommends dismissal of the Petition for untimeliness based on Petitioner's failure to file his petition within the one-year statute of limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Id. at Part III.) Magistrate Judge Peebles also determined that Petitioner cannot claim any exceptions to the one-year limitation. (Id.)

C. Petitioner's Objections to the Report-Recommendation

On January 27, 2012, and February 17, 2012, Petitioner filed his objections to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 18.) Although Petitioner's second set of objections were untimely, the Court will consider them out of special solicitude to him.

Generally, in his objections, Petitioner asserts the following three arguments: (1) the lower court should have held an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner's claims of improper and prejudicial conduct between the arresting officer and the NYS police investigator; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the "intent to use" element of the weapons possession charge, and a preliminary hearing or grand jury procceeding should have been conducted to consider that fact; and (3) Petitioner's ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claims are unexhausted and should not be dismissed. (Id.)

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Standard of Review

When a specific objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be "specific," the objection must, with particularity, "identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c).*fn1 When performing such a de novo review, "[t]he judge may . . . receive further evidence. . . ." 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1). However, a district ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.